SHRIYA @ SARIYA Vs. SATBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-defendants are in second appeal. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as defendants and the respondent as plaintiff.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 16/9/2004 pertaining to a plot measuring 100 sq. yards as detailed out in the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). As per the plaintiff, Kaptan, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants executed agreement to sell dtd. 16/9/2004 in his favour. Kaptan agreed to sell suit property in his favour for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,000.00. Full and final payment was made by the plaintiff to vendor Kaptan on the same day. Kaptan agreed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff on his asking. Kaptan died on 14/6/2000 leaving behind defendants as his legal heirs. Mutation qua suit property was sanctioned in favour of defendants. Plaintiff issued legal notice dtd. 13/11/2014, calling upon the defendants to execute sale deed in his favour on 26/11/2014. Plaintiff claims to have remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on the appointed date. After the defendants failed to execute the sale deed in his favour, the plaintiff instituted the present suit on 22/12/2014.

(3.) Suit was contested by the defendants by filing joint written statement. Execution of agreement to sell by their predecessor-in-interest, Kaptan was denied. It was claimed that the same is a result of fraud played by plaintiff upon Kaptan. Defendants denied possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendants claimed to have constructed a residential house over the plot. As per defendant, the suit property was gifted by the Gram Panchayat of village Devru to Kaptan vide registered gift deed No.6594 dtd. 11/3/1994. As per the relevant regulations/rules, the donee is bound by the conditions of the gift and cannot alienate the same for a period of 20 years from the date of gift. The agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff dtd. 16/9/2004 being in violation of the terms of the gift is illegal and not binding on the rights of the defendants.